From xod@thestonecutters.net Sun Jul 20 17:25:25 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 77879 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 00:25:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Jul 2003 00:25:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 00:25:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19eOUW-00027N-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:25:24 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eOUO-000273-00; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:25:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.111.194.10] (helo=granite.thestonecutters.net) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19eOUD-00025W-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 17:25:06 -0700 Received: from granite.thestonecutters.net (localhost.thestonecutters.net [127.0.0.1]) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h6L0L6VH058885 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) Received: from localhost (xod@localhost) by granite.thestonecutters.net (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) with ESMTP id h6L0L6hv058882 for ; Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:06 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from xod@thestonecutters.net) X-Authentication-Warning: granite.thestonecutters.net: xod owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 20:21:06 -0400 (EDT) To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: da is not what xod thinks it is (was Re: use of ko'a) In-Reply-To: <20030721003208.GA53380@allusion.net> Message-ID: <20030720202044.E53582-100000@granite.thestonecutters.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 5929 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: xod@thestonecutters.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Invent Yourself Reply-To: xod@thestonecutters.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=110189215 X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 20411 On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 05:24:59PM -0400, Invent Yourself wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:01:19PM +0300, Robin Turner wrote: > > > > When I said "you would only use it", I didn't mean "you can never > > > > use it in any other way." Unbound ko'a is grammatical, but > > > > stylistically I think it's malglico. > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > > > le mi mamta mamta cu mutce nelci le karce .i ko'a ji'a nelci le > > > ladru > > > > > > I don't see that anyone's going to have much confusion there, and > > > since I presumably intend to deliver a bunch more sentences > > > involving le mi mamta mamta, it seems a reasonable thing to do. > > > > > > This is not the most convincing use of unbound ko'a, for reasons which > > have already been discovered. > > > > Suppose we want to introduce a new variable, without claiming existence, > > and which lasts longer than da does (gets reset after every bridi, they > > say!) but by position, without altering the bridi structure simply to > > expose the sumti for goiery? > > da can't get reset because it never is set...because it never refers > to a specific thing. > > da has scope that can end sub-bridi (in a subsentence rule, etc). > Saying that it "resets" suggests a misunderstanding of da. Thanks for agreeing with me. > > le mi mamta mamta cu nelci le karce be fi ko'a .i ku'i ko'a ckape .i ko > > stidi ma mi > > ko'a ki'a -- The Pentagon group believed it had a visionary strategy that would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies...